The Wilderness Society South Australia Inc. and Department of the Environment (Freedom of information)

This matter concerned an application for access to documents under the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth) by The Wilderness Society South Australia Inc. against the Department of the Environment. The core dispute revolved around whether certain information, which had been redacted from documents provided to the applicant, was exempt from disclosure under section 47(1)(b) of the Act, which pertains to trade secrets or commercially valuable information.

The legal issues before Deputy K Bean P were whether the redacted information was exempt from disclosure on the grounds that it constituted a trade secret or commercially valuable information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to diminish its value. This required an assessment of several factors, including the extent to which the information was known to others, whether it conferred a competitive advantage, its tradability, its currency, its impact on BP's business, the cost of its acquisition, and the potential reduction in its value upon disclosure.

The Deputy President considered each of these factors in detail. While acknowledging that the information was not widely known and had been expensive to acquire, the Deputy President was not satisfied that it conferred a competitive advantage or that its disclosure would necessarily reduce the value of BP's business operations. However, the Deputy President found that the information was "tradable" to other petroleum companies exploring in adjacent areas, accepting that such companies would likely be willing to exchange similar information for access to BP's data. Despite the document being almost three years old, the Deputy President was satisfied that the information retained sufficient accuracy and currency to be of interest to these adjacent permit holders. Crucially, the Deputy President concluded that if the information were publicly available, it would cease to be tradable, thereby diminishing its value to BP.

Consequently, the Deputy President affirmed the decision under review, finding that the redacted information was exempt from disclosure under section 47(1)(b) of the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth).